 |
Dr Carl Ungerer
Introductory paper
In May 2010, ASPI published a major report on the challenges facing Australia’s resources diplomacy in Asia. The report argued that the return of natural resource politics was associated with three global developments—the continuing economic rise of China and India, the intermingling of trade, national security and environmental considerations, and the emphasis on the trade in resources for national prosperity at a time of uncertainty in the international economy.
To broaden the debate, ASPI commissioned several participants to write short analytical papers from different country perspectives. The process has yielded some rich insights into how regional countries view Australia’s natural resource endowments. |
|
Read the article>> |
|
 |
Dr Xian (Sean) Liu
Resouces diplomacy in the Australia–China relationship
A well-designed strategic plan will enable Australia’s rich natural resources to play a leading role in strengthening Australia’s relationship with China while maximising national interests. Development and implementation of such a plan requires a complete understanding of the relevant conditions and considerations of both nations. |
|
Read the article>> |
|
 |
Dr Ashutosh Misra
Australia’s resource diplomacy and India’s energy needs
India is the world’s sixth largest energy consumer owing to robust economic development, industrialisation and rising human population. It is estimated that by 2025 India will become one of the world’s top energy consumers along with United States and China. India currently imports 69% of its oil out of which 67% comes from the Middle East. And considering the volatility of that region, India realises the need to devise a comprehensive energy security regime. |
|
Read the article>> |
|
 |
Professor O. Yul Kwon
South Korea’s approach to energy and resource security
In 2006, South Korea was the world’s tenth-largest consumer of primary energy at 2.1% of the global total. Korea’s total primary energy consumption increased fairly steadily from 193.0 million metric tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in 2000 to 240.8 Mtoe in 2008, an average annual growth rate over the period of 3%. Korea has only limited domestic supplies of energy, and has to import 96.4% of its energy requirements. A remarkable change in the structure of energy consumption has occurred recently. |
|
Read the article>> |
|
 |
Dr David Martin Jones
Australia and the problem of resource security in Asia
As the dust begins to settle from what the current Australian Foreign Minister once termed the Global Financial Crisis, a much altered regional and global economic landscape is beginning to appear. The global imbalance between financially solvent, export-oriented East Asia, whose economies run large budget and trade surpluses, and the consumption driven, financially insolvent European and US economies which (with the exception of Germany) run large trade deficits, is in the process of creating a global economic power shift. As the West inexorably diminishes economically, the material and geo-political influence of the new giant economies of Asia, India and China, as if by an invisible hand, grows. |
|
Read the article>> |
|
 |
Dr Ian Hall
Resources diplomacy: A wider view
Using one’s resources as leverage over others is a practice as old as the hills, but it is a risky business. ‘Resource diplomacy’ means, in effect, manipulating the price of what you are selling. It means raising or lowering the price to change the behaviour of the customer. It means adding a political surcharge or offering a political discount to the price set by the market. |
|
Read the article>> |
|
 |
Mr Richard Leaver
Resources and Asian engagement: an historical perspective on the future
Resources diplomacy is risky business. But so too is the obverse policy where the terms and conditions of international resource transfers are left to what Canberra has for three decades called ‘normal commercial relations’. The real question is about the balance of risks between these two strategies and how that balance is moving over the short and long run. The comments in my paper suggest some good reasons why resources diplomacy ought to make even more sense in the future than it does right now.
|
|
Read the article>> |
|